Rhetoric, Discourse and Argument in Organizational Sense Making: A Reflexive Tale

Watson, Tony J.

doi:10.1177/017084069501600503

Cited by 259 publications

(202 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

190

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, organizational researchers have increased their interest in rhetorical theory as an additional lens through which to understand organizational actions and phenomena (Abrahamson, 1997;Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999;Barley & Kunda, 1992;Eccles et al, 1992;Gill & Whedbee, 1997;Huff, 1983;Watson, 1995;Zbaracki, 1998).…”

Section: A Rhetorical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

A Rhetorical Theory of Diffusion

Green¹

2004

The Academy of Management Review

176

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I use rhetorical theory to reconceptualize the diffusion of managerial practices. Specifically, I argue that the diffusion of a practice depends on the discursive justifications used to rationalize it. When such justifications are accepted and taken for granted, a practice reaches a state of institutionalization. Furthermore, I propose that changes in justifications and diffusion provide a basis for explaining institutionalization as both a process and a state. I then develop several propositions from this model.The management field has witnessed the rise and fall of many managerial practices, including sensitivity training, quality circles, and reengineering (Carson, Lanier, Carson, & Guidry, 2000;Eccles, Nohria, & Berkley, 1992). Most management innovations arrive and dissipate quickly (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999), while a few thrive and diffuse broadly throughout the business community. Although several theories explain variation in the diffusion of managerial practices (Abrahamson, 1991;O'Neill, Pouder, & Buchholtz, 1998;Rogers, 1995), critics argue that these explanations often emphasize realist concerns at the expense of linguistic considerations (Hirsch, 1986;Strang & Meyer, 1994). Therefore, in this article I use neoinstitutional theory, because it emphasizes the role of language or discourse in the diffusion process (Strang & Meyer, 1994).Proponents of the neoinstitutional perspective view the spread of managerial practices as a salient organizational act that must make sense to decision makers and must satisfy the institutional environment (Scott, 1995;Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). Managerial practices are accompanied by legitimating managerial discourse, which explains how practices help managers rationally pursue valued goals (Friedland & Alford, 1991;Strang & Meyer, 1994). For example, the management fashion variant of neoinstitutionalism (Abrahamson, 1996;Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999;Kieser, 1997) describes how managers use discourse to communicate to organizational stakeholders that the adoption of a given practice complies with norms of rationality and norms of progress (Abrahamson, 1996;Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999). Thus, discourse shapes decisions about the adoption and wider diffusion of managerial practices (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999;Strang & Meyer, 1994).Although neoinstitutional theory includes a role for discourse, two key problems remain. First, it suggests a model of diffusion that is inherently adaptivist (Hasselbladh & Kallinikos, 2000). It shifts rational adaptation from the need to acquire resources in the technoeconomic environment to the need to conform normatively to the social environment (Hasselbladh & Kallinikos, 2000;Hasselbladh & Theodoridis, 1997), and it fails to explain why those needs exist or become influential or why a particular structure fulfills the need in question (Perrow, 1993). Second, neoinstitutional theory focuses on how institutions constrain actors at the expense of explaining how actors create institutions (Barley & Tolbert, 1997;Zucker, 1987). Culture and...

show abstract

Section: A Rhetorical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

A Rhetorical Theory of Diffusion

Green¹

2004

The Academy of Management Review

176

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study of rhetorical devices has also offered insights into this aspect of discourse. This approach looks at symbols within the organization to examine the way they shape messages and message responses (Putnam & Fairhurst, 2001;Watson, 1994Watson, , 1995. Approaches that focus on rhetoric draw on classic definitions and theories of argumentation in order to demonstrate how particular features and forms of discourse are used in relation to a variety of organizational practices.…”

Section: Discourses and Organizingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction: Organizational Discourse: Exploring the Field

Grant¹,

Hardy²,

Oswick³

et al. 2004

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse

167

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There is virtually no end to the embedding of development stories, and a new context gets born at each level. Watson (1995) observes how managers who aim at making sense of their activity and support their interest find the source of their individual statements in broader organisational discourses. Developers source likewise their stories in all sorts of narratives and play fully on the richness and efficiency of storytelling as multi-levelled communication and contextualising medium.…”

Section: Selecting Backgrounds -Contextualisingmentioning

confidence: 99%